Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
581

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]americaninsweden wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

This is the typical conservative slippery slope fallacy. Let’s take everything to its logical extreme.[/quote]

Not in the case of a court deciding a legal principle that extends to other potential classes and conduct.[/quote]
It will definitely give polygamists more of a chance. I don’t think there was any legitimate legal basis to outlaw polygamy in the first place though. Animals though? Seriously? Consent is required, horses can’t consent. [/quote]

It’s a legal and moral clusterfuck. Polygamy is the sexual equivalent of having your cake and eating it too. Monogamy, gay or straight, should be celebrated as a virtue.[/quote]

I’m surprised you would all of a sudden be advocating for government determining virtue. [/quote]

Why would you be surprised? It’s within the national interest to encourage citizens to strive for and provide a stable family structure, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientations. Out of curiosity, how do you categorize me politically? I’m not sure if you’ve read some of my positions regarding many issues of which could be classified as very conservative.

583

If we accept the premise that government should be involved in any marriage, then I can see no reason for government not to recognize same-sex marriage.

However, although I see no reason for government not to recognize same-sex marriage, it should remain up to each state to decide the issue for itself, unless a Constitutional Amendment is passed defining marriage(either in favor of or against same-sex) for the states.

584

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

…It’s within the national interest to encourage citizens to strive for and provide a stable family structure, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientations…

[/quote]

Rather oxymoronish, wouldn’t you think?
[/quote]

If confirmation bias is your guide, I suppose.

587

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]americaninsweden wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

This is the typical conservative slippery slope fallacy. Let’s take everything to its logical extreme.[/quote]

Not in the case of a court deciding a legal principle that extends to other potential classes and conduct.[/quote]
It will definitely give polygamists more of a chance. I don’t think there was any legitimate legal basis to outlaw polygamy in the first place though. Animals though? Seriously? Consent is required, horses can’t consent. [/quote]

It’s a legal and moral clusterfuck. Polygamy is the sexual equivalent of having your cake and eating it too. Monogamy, gay or straight, should be celebrated as a virtue.[/quote]

I’m surprised you would all of a sudden be advocating for government determining virtue. [/quote]

Why would you be surprised? It’s within the national interest to encourage citizens to strive for and provide a stable family structure, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientations. Out of curiosity, how do you categorize me politically? I’m not sure if you’ve read some of my positions regarding many issues of which could be classified as very conservative.[/quote]

Because if anything, polygamy should be regarded as far more “virtuous” than a situation where one daddy is inserting his dick in the other daddy’s asshole while little Mary and John do their geography homework in the room down the hall.

Polygamy has a far richer tradition than gays do when it comes to world history.

Polygamy was, and is in some places, a norm for thousands of years. Homosexuality has been mostly condemned for thousands of years.

There are good, sound, pragmatic, compelling to the state reasons to promote man/woman marriage. There are only mushy, whiny stupid reasons for promoting the marriage of gays. In either case love has nothing to do with it. [Cue Tina Turner]

  • I’m not advocating for polygamous marriage.[/quote]

Interesting way to look at it considering the Italians, specifically the Florentines of the past, Donatello’s work of David. You see being homosexual or a pedo was the norm in many regions of Italy regardless of religion. In Florence it was normal for a young man to court young boys for years prior to marriage. If I remember the reading correctly, between the ages of like 23-30 it was pretty normal for young men to court and fuck little boys, and these were Catholics… So, go ahead and read it. I think Donatello’s David speaks volumes about the region and time.

But, I can’t really think of any real reason or virtue to prevent gay marriage. It isn’t virtuous to deny folks freedoms.

Fraud happens in regular marriage, just like it could happen between two men or two women. That isn’t a reason to prevent gay marriage unless it’s a specific problem unique to homosexuals… Here’s a secret, outside of sexual orientation, there is no reason for gays not to marry.

So, stop being homophobes. Realize there is a difference between marriage within the Church and marriage via the state. If the government tries to force the Church to marry I’ll have your backs in that fight, but that isn’t what’s happening.

Lexical definitions mean very little, language is slave to how we use it, so looking at a dictionary and telling me that Marriage is defined a certain way. Look at Mirriams and tell me how the color of magenta is defined. Is that an accurate description of magenta, and could a person who has never seen the color magenta be able to pick out the color according to the lexical definition without fail?

At one point blue was defined simply as, “the blue color of the sky.” Then you can look up sky and see that sky isn’t descriptive about color or time, maybe you are looking at the sky at night time and think blue is closer to something like black with random planets and starts about. Sometimes definitions in dictionaries are vacuous and stupid, asking you to look up another word, and that word doesn’t make any sense at all. Problem with lexical definitions is that they aren’t even static with time, language is slave to how we use it.

You might have an argument from etymology, but it will further point out that language is slave to how we use it.

588

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]americaninsweden wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

This is the typical conservative slippery slope fallacy. Let’s take everything to its logical extreme.[/quote]

Not in the case of a court deciding a legal principle that extends to other potential classes and conduct.[/quote]
It will definitely give polygamists more of a chance. I don’t think there was any legitimate legal basis to outlaw polygamy in the first place though. Animals though? Seriously? Consent is required, horses can’t consent. [/quote]

It’s a legal and moral clusterfuck. Polygamy is the sexual equivalent of having your cake and eating it too. Monogamy, gay or straight, should be celebrated as a virtue.[/quote]

I’m surprised you would all of a sudden be advocating for government determining virtue. [/quote]

Why would you be surprised? It’s within the national interest to encourage citizens to strive for and provide a stable family structure, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientations. Out of curiosity, how do you categorize me politically? I’m not sure if you’ve read some of my positions regarding many issues of which could be classified as very conservative.[/quote]

Because if anything, polygamy should be regarded as far more “virtuous” than a situation where one daddy is inserting his dick in the other daddy’s asshole while little Mary and John do their geography homework in the room down the hall.

…
[/quote]

Wow. Why anybody is even arguing with you is amazing.

589

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]americaninsweden wrote:

It will definitely give polygamists more of a chance…

[/quote]

Every single “principle” used to support gay marriage can, and will, be used to support polygamous marriage.
[/quote]
The difference is that one out of every 10 people (give or take) is not a polygamist. As far as I know, there is not a major movement to legalize polygamy (I have been living in Sweden for a few years, so there very well could be). It’s not like it’s prosecuted anyway. That being said banning it and "unlawful cohabitation) because Mormons were fucking with your government/land/feelings seems like less than a legitimate reason.

590

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

This is all well and true however, comparing gay marriage to abortion is a really bad comparison. I don’t think pro choice ever had the meteoric rise that support for gay marriage had. Nor do I see gay marriage if allowed going “the other way” where enough people are sick of it to reverse it. It’s WAY different when talking about the life of an unborn than when talking if two dudes should be allowed to say I do. [/quote]

Incorrect, from the standpoint I was talking about. Gay marriage is a divisive, complex issue with strong opinions on both sides - just like abortion. If the court steps in and short-circuits the democratic debate by declaring one side or the other a “winner” as a matter of constitutonal right, that will poison the process that we are seeing - one of compromise.

Many who are lukewarm, ambivalent and even supportive of gay marriage from a policy point of view won’t like the idea of a panel of nine unelected lawyers deciding for the rest of us. This isn’t just a question about the propriety of gay marriage - it’s also a question of “who decides the propriety?”. If the court elects to decide, respective camps will galvanize and become even more ideological.

Just like abortion.

[quote]It is over though and whether the courts do step in or not is irrelevant. It’s clearly a matter of time. I was just saying Republicans should be rooting for it as it gets them out of being on the losing side going forward (which they unquestionably will be, just look at the polling).
[/quote]

False again. If the court steps in, it will be highly relevant the ongoing debate, because the court will declare a “winner” in terms of opinion. [/quote]

At a certain point you could have said the same thing about segregation though. It was a complex, divisive issue the court made a judgment on. And it largely went away over time minus the nutjobs who still support it.

I’m not saying it will all go away overnight, but I do think it’s something even the right will “get over.” You can see the rights opposition ALREADY going away from it. Look at the polls. Look at their speech. They are preparing to long term sheath the swords on the issue. Look at Portman, look at what Rove said, you have more and more people on the right who are “getting over” this. For God sakes look at Bill O’Reilly. The opposition is getting more fragmented because they are seeing the same things I’m seeing.

I’m not saying the court SHOULD decide either, in fact I don’t think they should one bit.

If the SCOTUS forces it outcries will be heard. Passionate speeches will be made. It WILL be an issue, but that issue will slowly go away as the public get comfortable with it. Why do I think they will get comfortable with it? Because the polls show me the public is already comfortable with it and getting MORE SO.

If progressives boo the decision against they shouldn’t. 70% in favor in 18-32 bracket. Many voters who won’t touch the Republican Party because they feel it’s bigoted. Polling that shows the rest of the country coming in line with what they think. Short term maybe this is good for Republicans (SCOTUS dismiss), but long term? Not a chance. Smart men on that side see they are already losing on the issue.

A winner has already been declared in opinion though. Approval is way up. Opposition is way down. And trending MASSIVELY in the favor.

591

[quote]americaninsweden wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]americaninsweden wrote:

It will definitely give polygamists more of a chance…

[/quote]

Every single “principle” used to support gay marriage can, and will, be used to support polygamous marriage.
[/quote]
The difference is that one out of every 10 people (give or take) is not a polygamist. As far as I know, there is not a major movement to legalize polygamy (I have been living in Sweden for a few years, so there very well could be). It’s not like it’s prosecuted anyway. That being said banning it and "unlawful cohabitation) because Mormons were fucking with your government/land/feelings seems like less than a legitimate reason.[/quote]

I love this whole then people will marry cats and trees and horses and and and!

Which is exactly why states that have allowed gay marriage so far have massive problems with that stuff right? Oh wait, they don’t. Legion is right on on this one. Let’s take it to the extreme so we can feel impassioned about our viewpoint!

592

[quote]H factor wrote:<<< At a certain point you could have said the same thing about segregation though. >>>[/quote]And here we go again. And again and again.

593

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:<<< At a certain point you could have said the same thing about segregation though. >>>[/quote]And here we go again. And again and again.
[/quote]

You’ll be ok. I know it’s scary and I couldn’t imagine getting busy with another dude either. But you’ll be fine. You know you don’t have to do something just because someone else does? That should put your mind at ease.

What should worry you is the hatred towards gays. Seems as if a lot of these anti-gay preachers and politicians end up really wanting people of the same sex. Strange phenomenon huh? I’m not worried about the women, but the children is another story!

594

[quote]H factor wrote:

At a certain point you could have said the same thing about segregation though. It was a complex, divisive issue the court made a judgment on. And it largely went away over time minus the nutjobs who still support it.[/quote]

False, and this continues to be a non-sequitur. The 14th Amendment was enacted to deal directly with race issues, and race is not and never will be sexual orientation.

Moreover, the policies originate from very different places - segregation was designed to perpetuate racial supremacy, but traditional marriage laws were not designed to perpetuate “heterosexual supremacy.” Tradiotional marriage laws have no invidious intent and they serve to provide public policy problems that are unique to heterosexual relationships.

This comparison is cheap and lazy and has obvious appeal to gay marriage advocates - but more importantly, it’s dead wrong. It’s apples and oranges.

595

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

At a certain point you could have said the same thing about segregation though. It was a complex, divisive issue the court made a judgment on. And it largely went away over time minus the nutjobs who still support it.[/quote]

False, and this continues to be a non-sequitur. The 14th Amendment was enacted to deal directly with race issues, and race is not and never will be sexual orientation.

Moreover, the policies originate from very different places - segregation was designed to perpetuate racial supremacy, but traditional marriage laws were not designed to perpetuate “heterosexual supremacy.” Tradiotional marriage laws have no invidious intent and they serve to provide public policy problems that are unique to heterosexual relationships.

This comparison is cheap and lazy and has obvious appeal to gay marriage advocates - but more importantly, it’s dead wrong. It’s apples and oranges.[/quote]

I’m not going to fight you on this because I don’t really care about changing your mind on it. I will think they have much more similarities and you will think much less to 0. You compared gay marriage to abortion, I think that was a shitty comparison. I compared it to segregation and you think that is a shitty comparison. I don’t think either of us is going to get anywhere with that.

The rest of my post can be had at if you want. Namely the fact that the right isn’t building up for this fight, but is drawing back. And that the ones who want to fight are really losing badly in the court of public opinion.

596

[quote]H factor wrote:

I’m not going to fight you on this because I don’t really care about changing your mind on it. I will think they have much more similarities and you will think much less to 0. You compared gay marriage to abortion, I think that was a shitty comparison. I compared it to segregation and you think that is a shitty comparison. I don’t think either of us is going to get anywhere with that. [/quote]

Gay marriage and abortion are not similar in terms of classifications - where they are comparable is that they both involve contentious social issues in the middle of a public debate and the court should not make the same mistake it made years ago by diving into another one.

Race and sexual orientations are both kinds of classifications, but they are not comparable for purposes of equal protection consideration, for the reasons I stated.

[quote]The rest of my post can be had at if you want. Namely the fact that the right isn’t building up for this fight, but is drawing back. And that the ones who want to fight are really losing badly in the court of public opinion.
[/quote]

You’re like a broken record on this point. No one is debating where the trends are - what is being debated is whether the Supreme Court should weigh in.

597

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Tradiotional marriage laws have no invidious intent and they serve to provide public policy problems that are unique to heterosexual relationships.
[/quote]

Such as?

598

From an argument of pure logic, the ban on gay marriage is going to fail.

  1. If you are going to say that only heteros can make children, well old people can’t procreate either, so should they be denied marriage ?

  2. Religion as a basis would fail because someone may not believe in a specific religion, or any religion altogether.

  3. There are already children growing up missing a mother or father, whether the parents are gay or straight. Some kids grow up with no parents at all.

  4. Can any noticeable harm come from letting homosexuals marry, none that I see.

I really don’t give a shit what other people do in their bedrooms. SCOTUS might kick this down to the states to decide, so they are not left having to make the controversial decision.

599

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

You’re like a broken record on this point. No one is debating where the trends are - what is being debated is whether the Supreme Court should weigh in.[/quote]

You’re not following along well…you’re having a debate with yourself. I NEVER was discussing if the Court should or should not weigh in. In fact you’re the only person doing that, having a debate with yourself.

I said the best thing for Republicans would be for the Supreme Court to rule in favor as it would in the long run put to bed an issue that will hurt them nationally in the future based on current trends. Arguably it has already hurt them nationally.

You’re trying to have a fight no one else is. I never discussed whether or not the Court should or should not rule. That isn’t what I’m talking about and even if I don’t want them to rule on it of course they are going to. So it’s pretty fucking stupid to talk about that at this point.

I have only been discussing the results of the decision or at least attempting to. Here though (again): I don’t think the Supreme Court should make this decision even though I support gay marriage, let the states do it. It WOULD be better for the Republicans in my mind if they DID vote in favor of it.

600

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Such as?[/quote]

Producing children, and the issues related to that - who has rights to the children, who is legally obligated to take care of the children, etc.

Be serious.